# Budget Committee of the Whole meeting - April 17, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 17, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2523 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2523?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-04-17 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,351 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview No meeting data is available for the date specified (2012-04-17). The provided information corresponds to a different meeting held on May 15, 2012, by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, presided over by Linda Gorton at the Council Chambers beginning at 3:00 p.m. During that May 15 meeting, the council approved nine agenda items related to various city departments and services, including Animal Care and Control, Building Inspection, Code Enforcement, Emergency Management, Enhanced 911, Corrections, Police, Fire and EMS, and the Department of Public Safety. The council took six motions and votes and heard one public comment during the session. To obtain information about the meeting held on April 17, 2012, please provide the relevant meeting data for that date. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on April 17, 2012: - George G. Myers - Peggy Henson - Linda Gorton - David Jarvis - Dewey Crowe - Pat Dugger - David Lucas - Rodney Ballard - Ronnie Bastin - Keith Jackson - Tyler Scott - Elizabeth Chatterton - Melissa Lueker - Elizabeth McGee - Jane C. Driskell - Clay Mason - Ryan Barrow - Stacey Maynard - Jenifer Benningfield - Paul Schoninger - Amelia Confides - Susan Malcomb - Connie Underwood - David Back No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Council passed six resolutions by voice vote during this meeting. **Resolution 0073-2012** [timestamp: 1:03:40] authorized and directed the Department of Finance and Administration to designate a fund of at least $200,000 per fiscal year for nuisance abatement activities. The motion was made by Peggy Henson and seconded by George G. Myers. The resolution passed. **Resolution 0074-2012** [timestamp: 1:01:58] initiated text amendments to transfer enforcement of the sign ordinance from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Planning. George G. Myers made the motion and Peggy Henson seconded it. The resolution passed. **Resolution 0075-2012** [timestamp: 0:47:44] directed the Division of Emergency Management to present a disaster preparedness plan relating to animals to the full Council by September 30, 2012. Linda Gorton made the motion and George G. Myers seconded it. The resolution passed. **Resolution 0076-2012** [timestamp: 1:10:20] directed Enhanced 911 to present a strategic plan regarding funding for E911 no later than October 31, 2012. George G. Myers made the motion and Peggy Henson seconded it. The resolution passed. **Resolution 0077-2012** [timestamp: 1:21:09] authorized and directed the Commissioner of Public Safety to conduct an evaluation of police and fire positions to determine if duties can be performed by non-sworn employees. George G. Myers made the motion and Peggy Henson seconded it. The resolution passed. **Resolution 0078-2012** [timestamp: 1:20:34] referred the creation of a policy for systematically replacing and maintaining vehicles, apparatuses, and other recurring costs critical to Public Safety divisions to a standing committee. George G. Myers made the motion and Peggy Henson seconded it. The resolution passed. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved the following financial actions: **Animal Care and Control Radio System Upgrade** A one-time cost of $11,687 was authorized to upgrade radios to a 900 MHz system for Animal Care and Control, under Resolution 0073-2012. **Nuisance Abatement Funding** The Division of Code Enforcement received an appropriation of $200,000 for nuisance abatement activities, including mowing, weeds, trash, and debris removal, under Resolution 0073-2012. **Outdoor Warning Sirens Replacement** The Division of Emergency Management was awarded $120,000 in grant funding for the replacement of 7 of the oldest outdoor warning sirens. **Fire Tower Demolition** The Division of Fire received $32,000 for the demolition of a condemned fire tower. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 1:33:15] David Back, a farmer from Fayette County, addressed the council regarding bicycle safety on rural roads. He expressed concern about the safety conditions on Red Road, which is only 14 feet wide but experiences high volumes of cyclist traffic. Back urged the council to consider two potential solutions: widening the road and increasing public awareness efforts to help prevent accidents in the area. ## Appointments The following appointment was made during this meeting: * **Rodney Ballard** was appointed to the position of Assistant Director, Corrections. ## Contested Items **In-house vs. Outsourced Project Management for Consent Decree Projects** Council members were divided on how to structure project management oversight for consent decree projects. The debate centered on whether to hire an internal project manager or contract with an outside firm. Those supporting an external contractor argued that engaging a specialized firm could generate significant cost savings—potentially millions of dollars over a 10-year period. Proponents of this approach emphasized that an outside firm would bring specialized expertise and could implement value engineering strategies to reduce project costs. In contrast, other council members advocated for hiring an in-house project manager. Their position prioritized accountability and continuity, arguing that an internal hire would provide more direct oversight and ensure consistent management of the projects throughout their duration. The council voted on this matter, resulting in a split decision with members unable to reach consensus on the preferred approach. ## Animal Care and Control [timestamp: 00:47:44] The committee heard a presentation on Animal Care and Control featuring speakers Linda Gorton and Susan Malcomb. The discussion highlighted the partnership between the Lexington Humane Society and LFUCG (Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government), which was characterized as a national model for animal care collaboration. The committee took action on two matters: **Disaster Preparedness Plan** The committee recommended directing the Division of Emergency Management to develop and present a comprehensive disaster preparedness plan for animals. This plan is due by September 30, 2012. **Radio System Upgrade** The committee approved a one-time expenditure of $11,687 to upgrade radios to the 900 MHz system. The outcome of the agenda item was approved. ## Building Inspection The committee discussed revisions to the mining and quarrying inspection fee structure during this agenda item. [timestamp: 01:01:58] **Key Speakers** George G. Myers and Dewey Crowe led the discussion on this matter. **Discussion and Presentation** The committee examined two options for restructuring the inspection fees: - A fixed rate increase approach - A formula-based approach tied to prior year costs The proposed changes were designed to make the fee structure revenue-neutral while ensuring fees accurately reflected actual inspection costs. **Additional Action** The committee also recommended adopting a resolution to transfer sign ordinance enforcement responsibilities from Building Inspection to the Planning department. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Code Enforcement The committee discussed code enforcement initiatives and approved recommendations to strengthen the city's nuisance abatement efforts. **Key Speaker** Peggy Henson presented on this agenda item. [timestamp: 1:03:40] **Recommendations Approved** The committee recommended adopting a resolution to fund nuisance abatement with a minimum of $200,000 annually. This funding commitment aims to support ongoing code enforcement activities across the city. The committee also directed the Department of Finance to include code enforcement liens in monthly reports, establishing a mechanism for regular tracking and reporting of enforcement actions. Additionally, the committee directed coordination of a sign-abatement program modeled after Louisville's Operation Brightside, bringing a proven approach from another city to address signage violations locally. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Emergency Management The committee discussed emergency management matters, with Peggy Henson serving as the key speaker on this agenda item [timestamp: 1:08:12]. The discussion focused on two primary areas: long-term emergency preparedness and the status of the outdoor warning siren system. **Long-Term Emergency Preparedness** The committee recommended referring long-term emergency preparedness matters to the Planning and Public Works Committee for further review and action. **Outdoor Warning Sirens** The committee addressed the need to modernize 10-12 outdated outdoor warning sirens. This modernization effort was discussed in the context of current funding constraints, as the committee noted the impact of reduced grant funding on the ability to upgrade these critical emergency notification systems. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Enhanced 911 The committee discussed the Enhanced 911 (E911) system and directed E911 to present a strategic funding plan by October 31, 2012. [timestamp: 1:10:20] **Key Speaker** George G. Myers participated in this discussion. **Issues Raised** The committee identified concerns about the sustainability of the current E911 funding model. Specifically, declining landline usage was noted as a challenge to the existing funding structure. The committee emphasized the need to update the funding model to better reflect current call volumes and to account for regional network savings. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. The committee's directive requires E911 to develop and present a comprehensive strategic funding plan addressing these concerns by the October 31, 2012 deadline. ## Corrections [timestamp: 1:12:41] The committee discussed several matters related to the Corrections department, with George G. Myers serving as a key speaker on the agenda item. **Actions Recommended** The committee recommended authorizing an Assistant Director position within Corrections. Additionally, the committee directed the department to present a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) program update by August 31, 2012. **Revenue Discussion** The committee also discussed increasing federal prisoner intake as a means to boost departmental revenue. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Police The police department presented updates on several operational matters during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:14:01]. **Collective Bargaining Agreement** The department reported on the ratification of a new collective bargaining agreement. Details regarding the specific terms and conditions of this agreement were presented to the body. **Volunteer Policing Program** The police discussed the use of volunteers in policing operations, outlining how volunteers contribute to departmental functions and community engagement. **Recruitment Efforts** Ongoing recruitment initiatives were addressed, with the department providing updates on efforts to fill positions and build the force. **NCAA Tournament Costs** The police department noted the impact of NCAA tournament overtime costs on the department's budget and operations. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Fire and EMS [timestamp: 1:19:32] The committee discussed two primary matters related to Fire and EMS operations. **Mitigation Cost Recovery** Peggy Henson presented a recommendation that the Fire Department explore options for recouping mitigation costs from responsible parties in cases of hazardous material spills. The committee approved this recommendation and requested that Fire provide a progress report on these efforts by November 30, 2012. **Fire Training Tower Replacement** The committee also addressed the need to replace a condemned fire training tower. This facility had reached the end of its serviceable life and required replacement to continue training operations. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved by the committee. ## Department of Public Safety [timestamp: 1:20:34] The committee discussed three primary matters related to the Department of Public Safety. **Vehicle and Apparatus Replacement Policy** The committee recommended creating a policy for systematic replacement of vehicles and apparatuses. This initiative would establish a structured approach to managing the department's fleet maintenance and renewal. **Position Evaluation** The committee authorized an evaluation of police and fire positions to identify opportunities for non-sworn duties. This review would assess which roles could be filled by civilian personnel rather than sworn officers or firefighters. **Final Four Expenditure Tracking** The committee recommended creating a log to track expenditures related to the Final Four event. This documentation system would support future reimbursement negotiations with the University of Kentucky, ensuring that costs incurred by the city in connection with the event could be properly accounted for and recovered. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. **Key Speaker** George G. Myers presented the Department of Public Safety matters to the committee. --- ## Decisions - **Resolution 0073-2012** — passed: Adopt resolution authorizing and directing the Department of Finance and Administration to designate a fund of at least $200,000 per fiscal year for nuisance abatement activities. - **Resolution 0074-2012** — passed: Adopt resolution initiating text amendments to transfer enforcement of the sign ordinance from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Planning. - **Resolution 0075-2012** — passed: Direct the Division of Emergency Management to present a disaster preparedness plan relating to animals to the full Council by September 30, 2012. - **Resolution 0076-2012** — passed: Direct Enhanced 911 to present a strategic plan regarding funding for E911 no later than October 31, 2012. - **Resolution 0077-2012** — passed: Authorize and direct the Commissioner of Public Safety to conduct an evaluation of police and fire positions to determine if duties can be performed by non-sworn employees. - **Resolution 0078-2012** — passed: Refer the creation of a policy for systematically replacing and maintaining vehicles, apparatuses, and other recurring costs critical to Public Safety divisions to a standing committee. --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. budget meeting and today we're going to hear report outs from environmental quality link and the public safety link thank you for being here and the first thing I'll do is welcome dr. blues he's chaired the environmental quality public Works link and we'll be giving the report out. Dr. Blues? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I know there's been a good deal of excited anticipation waiting for this report out, and so I'm pleased to be able to bring it forward at this time. The Public Works Environmental Quality Link Committee was composed of Council Members McCord and Farmer and myself serving as the chairperson. And I thank them for their service and work on this report. And Council Member Farmer did have to miss a couple of our meetings because of a conflict, but his aide, Jessica Gies, worked with us to convey his concerns and his questions. I want to thank as well Connie Underwood, who's working as our budget analyst through the budgeting process. Her analysis and the materials she provided us were a great help. And also, of course, I want to thank my legislative aide, Georgetta Gill, for putting together all of the materials that we needed in an order that made sense and for providing us with her insights and advice as we went forward. As you know, the Department of Public Works Environmental Quality has a commissioner's office and six divisions, and I will work us through them. Colleagues, at any time, if you have questions, feel free to ask. The Commissioner's Office reported to us that the Mayor's proposed budget meets all the department's FY13 needs. There are six funded positions, two of which are currently vacant, and of course that is the Commissioner's position, and the program manager senior position, which has been created particularly to oversee the many and varied consent decree-related projects. And I'll say a word about our recommendation regarding that position in a moment. We also had a request from the Board of the Valley View Ferry requesting an additional $25,000 toward the Match Grant, which we would share with Jessamine and Madison counties to provide the counties $75,000 toward the purchase of a new vessel, which is considerably more money than that. So as to our recommendations, we do support, of course, the acquiring of the program manager. We understand that there's a view on the part of some on the Council that this position would best be contracted out. We understand that view and the reasons why that might be an option. However, in our discussions, we concluded that an LFUCG employee would be closer on a day-to-day basis to the projects which are pending and underway. That person would be more readily available for consultation with relevant divisions, with the government, with the council, at committee meetings and at work sessions. We're also cognizant of the fact that a considerable body of consent decree work will be done by consultants and contractors. And we think that a project manager within government will be more directly responsible to the commissioner, closer in that way to the people paying the bill. and those, of course, are the taxpayers. So our recommendation would be to hire that position from within. That's consistent with the administration's position on this. As to the Valley View Ferry, that $25,000 item, we will be bringing that forward, Vice Mayor, as a late item. Division of Engineering. As you know, throughout this department, there's very little money that comes to it from the general fund. Engineering gets 14% of its total funding from general fund dollars. As to the highlights, there are 29 funded positions, two of which are currently vacant. Two things of importance, we think, here. We were told during the course of our discussion with engineering and with the acting commissioner that we expect about $115 million in projects to come forward, maybe 75 projects. and some of those are going to require matching money that would come from the MAP funding. We won't get that figure. We won't know what the MAP money is until later in the year, but we may need a good share of those dollars to match for state and federal grants. Now, last year we were able to use additional MAP money for paving. This year we're going to have to consider whether that's feasible given the perceived need to put some of that money in reserve for grant matches. We did discuss possible funding from the state for concrete intersections, and I'll ask Council Member McCord to give us a quick briefing on that. Just very quickly to the administration and to other council members, within that $115 million for Fayette County, or I should say in addition to that $115 million for just Fayette County and road projects from the state, the state also has an amount of a number of millions of dollars for intersections. It's statewide. It's kind of first come, first serve. So one of the things that we've done through the link process is for the administration to put together all the intersections in our city that potentially need to be reworked and kind of prioritizing that to get that to Frankfurt. So again, this is just money that we, the more aggressive we are, the better it is. So a number of the dollars that are up there for the $115 million, as Council Member Blues said, And our recommendation is to keep some of our local money over for matches so that we can activate that money as quickly as possible, along with some of these other pockets. So hopefully over the next year and two years, you're going to see a tremendous amount of asphalt and concrete going down in Fayette County. But it is something that the administration is bringing forward, and we're moving on outside of just the budget process. Thank you very much, Council Member McCord. And to conclude on engineering, the link does not recommend any budgetary changes. Traffic engineering. In the proposed budget, we'll receive 61% of its funding, an unusually high amount, from the general services fund. And that's because of a proposed transfer of funds from a proposed increase in franchise fees of about $2.5 million, which would pay for streetlights. As you know, we are behind in providing streetlights in a number of areas within the city. So with that proposed funding, we should be able to catch up. In the mayor's proposed budget, there is $50,000 for traffic signal construction and equipment, $25,000 for the neighborhood traffic management program. Traffic engineering has done a good job of helping save money by installing a lot of fiber optic cable, which makes data transmission and the operation of our streetlights much simpler. and more expensive. We do not recommend any budget changes for traffic engineering. In Streets, in Division of Streets and Roads, a couple of changes there. In FY13, as proposed, the leaf collection program would be conducted by that division and with $335,000 budgeted for that operation. Regarding the salt for the winter treatment of streets, the division is returning approximately $600,000 to the general fund from the FY12 $1 million budget for salt. So in addition to that return, we also have now a full salt barn and salt under the tarp. As you know, the mayor's proposed budget includes $3 million for paving, as well as some bond fund capital for sidewalks and catch basin repairs on Man of War, $150,000 there. And as regards the proposed new salt barn, that purchase, $2.5 million, will be deferred beyond 2013. Our recommendation regarding the Streets and Roads budget is to decrease their $1 million allocation as proposed by the mayor to $800,000. We believe that with a full supply that we can perhaps find other uses for the $200,000 reduction. And we'll be having some conversation with Parks and Recreation for some possible facilities there, and we'll be updating you on that shortly. Thank you. Council Member Blues, may I clarify just a little bit on that? To the other council members, the process of the budget, one of the things that happens every single year is there's always a lot of add-tos. Hey, we want to put this back in. And one of the charges of the links is to also find are there places where we can cut as well as add back and so forth. And so because so much of our budget is, or this portion of the budget is not general fund, There's very limited ways that we can contribute back to the general fund. But as it relates to salt, what Council Member Blue said was that we last year had a very warm winter, and we were able to not spend $600,000 on salt. That's getting returned back to the general fund. But there was a request by Streets and Roads for $900,000 for salt this year. The mayor put in a million dollars for salt, and so our recommendation was to take, since we have a full salt barn, and we would take $200,000 off of that million and return that back to the process of the budget because there are some other areas that may need those resources. And giving $800,000 to salt was at least fiscally responsible and looking at how we utilize our money, but also I know there's a number of things within parks that are kind of one-time capital expenses that that may be able to go to or there may be another area inside the budget process where we wanted to put that. But this is a give back into the general fund through the budget process, and I just wanted to kind of highlight and clarify what this was about. So, Council Member Blues, if I might follow up with Council Member McCord. So what you're saying is that $600,000 of the million in the current budget wasn't spent for salt, but then they've already ordered more salt to replenish the barn from that $600,000? Is that what this says? From the encumbered funds, the salt has been ordered, and the division expects that the $600,000 will be refunded. I shouldn't say refunded. Yeah. There are no refunds here. But the total cost of our salt needs for this season will be approximately somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000. For fiscal year 12. That's correct. So $600,000 of that will lapse. And back, yes. And has the mayor already, or has someone already spent that $600,000 in the current budget? No, we have not spent $600,000. Okay. So then how much is budgeted in the next budget? A million? Yes, one million. And you're recommending cutting it by $200,000? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And, Vice Mayor, the request by the division was around $900,000. And so, again, it was bumped to a million, so that's why we wanted to give that recommendation of $200,000. Thank you. Mr. Maloney. Back to your question about $600,000, that money is some of the money we're going to use for balancing the budget, the $600,000 that we have to the end of the year. So the money has not been spent. It would be used for the balanced budget. I thought probably that was the case. Since it was listed with salt ordered to replenish the barn, I didn't know if it had been used to order more salt. No, we didn't. But you're saying it wasn't. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On to environmental policy. The Division's budget request for FY13 is identical to their FY12 approved budget, with the exception of an addition of an energy improvement fund amounting to $81,600 in the mayor's proposed budget. That money would come from cost savings from completed energy efficiency projects within the government. The energy management program within the division has already saved considerable money. Just one quick example. Bulk purchase of natural gas has saved the government $230,000 over the 12-month term of the first contract. So some of those savings will go into this fund for reinvestment in other energy-saving and money-saving initiatives. We have one, or rather two, non-budgetary recommendations for the division. Number one, we would recommend that environmental policy report to the Environmental Quality Committee annually on public education expenditures and provide a cost-benefit analysis on that. I think the council should see more clearly that the funds we're spending on public education for such things as litter control, preventing grass from being blown out into the street after it's mowed to reduce fats, oils, and grease in the sewer system, that these education programs need to have some reporting mechanism so that we can get perhaps a handle on how effective they are. And secondly, we would suggest that the division look at the possibility of a LexCol app for reporting grass clipping violations. With regard to the division of water quality, Let me call your attention to a couple of increased numbers in Fund 4002. That's a sanitary sewer fund. That's an increase in the mayor's proposed budget of $2.9 million. And this money will provide for significant wastewater treatment process improvements. which are critical to ensuring the continued reliability of those processes in the wastewater treatment plants and to prevent further noncompliance, such as the town branch sewer overflow that we had about five years ago. And in Fund 4003, the Sanitary Silver Construction Fund, an increase there of $1.9 million to expand the I&I reduction program and to begin the remedial measures plan implementation. With regard to Fund 4051, that's the Water Quality Management Fund, that will be decreased by $1.5 million because there's a significant possibility of revenue reductions caused essentially by two things. One is the PSC ruling last year that we can't discontinue water service for nonpayment of the water quality fee. And second, the uncertainty regarding future collection rates due to the switch from Kentucky American to Cincinnati Water Works as our collecting agency. And these reductions will cost some deferred capital projects to a future year. That is for your information. The LINC does not propose any budgetary changes. We do have a non-budgetary recommendation, and that is that the administration look at the possibility of, with regard to the Water Quality Management Fund 4051, maybe to set up a construction fund similar to the relationship of our 4002 and 4003 funds so that money can be carried over more readily from one year to the next. Finally, with regard to the Division of Waste Management, the Division in the coming year will cope with some constraints on its ability to provide the level of service that the division is aspiring to. For example, the administration proposes a $385,000 reduction in the roll card budget, and this can cause some slowdown, especially in recycling areas. areas, and also there will be no funding for upgrades in the recycling center, the materials recovery facility, since the mayor's proposed budget has not responded positively to that request. The good news is that waste management continues the phased implementation of the new routing and customer service initiative. They, as a consequence, have been able to reduce seven routes thus far. And every time you reduce a route, you save $300,000. That's a one-time cost for a truck. And $130,000 annually in operating costs. We do have a couple of recommendations that the division continue to look to providing UK game day garbage cleanup. and I think that also is in the Solid Waste Task Force. Other than that, we do not have any budget changes recommended, and that, Vice Mayor, concludes my report. Thank you very much, Council Member Blues. Council Members, this is the time for questions. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I do have a question on the water quality budget and funding. about a month and a half ago that the council did a budget amendment to fund two projects in the stormwater program and apparently these two projects have been cut in the next fiscal year i'm trying to figure out what what sense that makes and cut we just did a budget amendment to fund them so we can get started and they're ready to go as i understand it except for one needs a permit from the state why are they not in next year's budget um and was that a late item that we're going to bring in correct or and these two projects are cardinal lane and roland avenue Yeah, that was why we had asked the Lynx Committee if they would consider making Fund 4051 an open capital fund, like Fund 403. We've moved the money. We won't be ready to go until after the beginning of the next fiscal year. And because it's a closed fund, the money reverts to the general fund as of July 1. So you're saying the storm water quality fee monies that we allocated, it goes just into the fund balance of the water quality? Oh, not to the general fund. I'm sorry. It goes into the water quality management fee fund. Yeah, fund balance. So what is that projected fund balance going into next year? Do we know that? That would be... And so are you asking us to reallocate it during this process? Is that what the division would like for us to do? If that's what the council wanted to do, we would certainly support that. Because it doesn't make sense. We just did the budget amendment to do the projects. Yes, we did. And now we're not doing them. So I think it's caused some confusion with neighbors and residents out there, too. Yeah, there were two projects that we were able to piece some money together, and unfortunately, as you said, because of easements and permits, we just aren't going to get the money encumbered in time to keep it open for the new fiscal year. Okay. Well, we can work on that. Do you know what the fund balance is? Oh, okay. Can you get us what the fund balance is projected going into next fiscal year? I think it's about 1.7. Yeah. Ryan said it's in the book, and I don't have that with me. I'm so sorry. I think it's about 1.7. Okay. Okay. Well, we can work on a late item. Well, and since we aren't using those funds, those funds will obviously be going back to fund balance, and if we had finished the project this year, the money would have been gone anyway. Okay. Thank you for clearing that up. Thank you, counsel. I'll just bring it on a late item. Thank you. I'm glad you brought that up because that is a perfect example of a late item that we've already passed, but they can't get done before July 1st. So thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you. Mr. Blues, I had a question on the project manager senior recommendation. It says we understand the view that contracting with an outside consultant would be a more prudent option. Why don't you state that, and did you have a presentation to the links or some kind of information to evaluate to come to that conclusion? Well, I think we really just wanted to acknowledge that this is open to discussion among council members, that there is to be, and I think you've expressed it fairly well, that we would save considerable money by investing in a contractor to oversee the consent decree projects. and simply wanted to express the lynx view that while we see that that might be one alternative, that we think that the better option is to have that project manager within government overseeing the number of, but will inevitably be outside contractors. So that was the rationale there of our recommendation. What is the budget for this position? The salary for the project manager is, including all benefits, is $92,000 plus. That includes benefits and everything? Yes, it does. Okay. All right. I've been a very strong proponent of hiring an outside firm to manage this project, and I would like for the council to maybe consider that in more detail. There are just a number of reasons that I think this would be good. I think the first reason that I'm in support of having an outside management firm to represent the government's interest in the construction, is that's the way they did the Yom Center in Louisville. That project was $234 million, and we're talking about maybe a $500 million project here over a 10-year period. Over 10 years, we could have two different mayors, four or five different groups of council members. We could have three new environmental quality commissioners. We could have Charlie Martin, might retire, heaven forbid. I hope not, but there are a lot of things that could go wrong. And to have a company that has a very experienced team of people that could manage this, I think there's also the chance that $500 million, if we could save half a percent, that would be $2.5 million. and then you add that with another $900,000 if it was our 10-year project for the salary we would be paying our employee, I think that we could definitely pay for the service. The other benefit is there are probably firms around the country that have expertise in working on consent decrees. They know the ups and downs and the issues that they have to address to be effective in managing these projects. and I think there would be a great deal of possibility of better coordination, expediting turnaround of contracts and documents. And there's things like value engineering, figuring out ways to build something for less money. When you have a representative like that working for the government, there's a lot of upside potential to save money. The other aspect of it, if we just hire one person and that person leaves in that 10-year period, then we're going to be starting out from ground zero from institutional knowledge because that person will be gone and we don't really have that much information to work with. So I consider this one of the greatest risks that we have. The pension fund is number one, and this is number two. This is a 10-year project. It's a half a billion dollars. There's fines if we're late. There's change orders, mismanagement, errors made, bad scheduling. All this could be very, very costly to our taxpayers. And so I think we need to look at this in a little bit more detail before we make a final decision. And I want to say that I have spoken to the mayor about this, and the mayor is an expert in construction management. And, you know, he has not come around to my way of thinking, so there must be something there. and maybe we could get his opinion on why we don't need to do this because he's basically the expert in the construction management. But I would hope that we would look at this in more detail. Thank you. As I say, we did want to indicate our respect for that view and open the way for a discussion of that issue so that other council members could ultimately weigh in on this. And I think Council Member McCord would like to. Council Member McCord. Council Member Lane, just to put your mind at ease a little bit, this issue we bannered back and forth is to do you do it in-house, do you out-house? Out-house. Do you do it in-house or do you outsource it? It's not a matter of doing it or not doing it. It's just how to do it. So everybody is kind of in line with your line of thinking. There needs to be someone working on efficiencies, overseeing the project. We've got some folks that are doing pieces and parts, but there does need to be a central head, whether it's an outside firm or a person inside government. And so the question is exactly what is happening here. We wanted to bring it out as, well, the link recommends, given this, that, and the other, that we go with the mayor's recommendation, but it needs to have a full council discussion. And you're right, we just need to see kind of a side-by-side comparison because it may be a wash as far as the expense goes, having an outside firm versus having someone inside. And there were a number of variables, but I just want to put your mind at ease that it's not a we shouldn't do that. We are going to do that. It's how do we do it best. So I just want to clarify. That's good because if, you know, we have a good representative of the government that helped us in value engineering and coordination, better bidding, better drawings, less change orders. I mean, you're talking about the potential for a huge savings. 1% is $5.4 million out of the estimated cost, so that would probably more than pay for that. Plus, we're talking about spending about $1 million for an employee over a 10-year period at $90,000 or $95,000 a year. I would like to recommend, if we could, maybe to ask Jim Host to speak to our group on the use of an owner's construction representative, because he did that over at the YUM arena, and it was very successful. But he could tell us his perspective on how it worked for him, and maybe we could see some benefits from his presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Council Members, are there any other questions? If not, Council Member McCord, did you have another one? Okay. Okay. Council Member Blues, I wanted to ask you on the Valley View Ferry page, would this $25,000 would be a new request, correct? This is not in the budget. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, I didn't hear your whole question. The Valley View Ferry, the $25,000 toward the grant match, is that a new request or is that something that the Council has already passed and should have been in the budget? It is new. It's new. Okay. Well, I wasn't really going to speak to late items today, but since it's listed as a new item and the paper says the administration will bring it in late items, Traditionally, late items are errors, items that the Council has passed that can't be finished this budget year and will impact next year, items that were mistakes. So this would be a new item, which typically is not in the late item list. So I would say that that would be a recommendation from your link, not coming from the administration because they've already presented the budget. So if that could come as a link recommendation, I think it would be the more appropriate place because we're not expecting any new items from the administration. The budget's already given to us. The request for the $25,000 came to us from the Valley View Ferry or subsequent to the mayor's proposed. Okay, so it could be a link. So it would be appropriate, I guess, to add it as a new item rather than from us, rather than a late item from the administration. Yes. I mean, late items are typically not brand new items. And many of us have been around for many budgets, and the late items are true things that are late, you know, that were already in the works. Yes, Mr. Maloney. This was on our radar, and what our intent was, we do all the mechanics for the boat, and we knew that they were going to be requiring a grant down the road, a match. We spent about, I think, $29,000 for the mechanic of the boat. Our intent was, next year, was to use that money as a match because we will no longer need a mechanic down there because they'll have a warranty on it. Well, they came back and told us that they needed the money now, so it was a mistake. It was not a mistake. They just didn't give us an advance notice. We had intent to use $25,000 and that $29,000 for next year for the match when they get the boat in. But they found out they needed the money before they can get the match. This can come as a recommendation from the link since it's a new item. Well, I don't know if it's considered a new item. It is a mistake. I don't want to call it a mistake. It's just they did not inform us that they needed the money immediately. Our intent was to use this money in the next year with the $29,000 that we already have. We put $14,000 up and a $29,000. The $29,000 was going to be used as part of the match for a mechanic. I mean, it's going to be a brand-new boat. We won't have to get under a warranty. So when they came to us a couple weeks ago and they informed us that they needed $25,000 so they go and get the $600,000 boat now. So that could be, if they get the vote next year, we may not have to use the $29,000 to put a match next year. Do you see any problem with the link recommending it? No, I mean, that's the reason why. Okay. I mean, I'm not the budgeting person, but the mistakes that are brought to us are usually dollar mistakes. You know, should have been $20 million instead of $19 or something like that. but I think it's a perfect example of something that could come from the link as a recommendation, and probably should, since it's new. I appreciate the clarification. Any other questions? Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just one other thought. This is not directly in the links meeting here, but it does relate to it, and that's the revenue for the environmental quality, particularly the sanitary sewer fees. And when those fees were set, I believe they had a cost of living increase in there, and of course the cost of living increase has been minimal for the last several years. So the anticipated revenue stream from the sanitary sewer fees is not, I guess, what we anticipated. I'm not saying that we need to adjust the fee, but I think that it would be appropriate to at least look at the estimated revenue for the next few years based on the current fee and what our anticipated expenditures are because it would be much better to have a very minimal increase each year than to have a big jump all at one time because we fail to make an adjustment or we fail to anticipate the need. So just a thought for the meeting today. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you very much, Council Member Blues, Council Member McCord, and Council Member Farmer. Okay. We will go ahead now with the public safety link. and this link was chaired by Council Member George Myers. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We had a great link session again this year, and the same committee members, they did a fantastic job. I want to start out by thanking all the staff from the council staff, the core staff, council administrator, all the way to the mayor's staff. They did a phenomenal job of getting this information in a timely fashion, which enabled us to do some analyses and things and then put this together for you today. Then, of course, my two colleagues on the link, Vice Mayor Gordon and Ms. Peggy Henson, did a fantastic job as well. So we're going to start. If you look at – do you guys have our presentation? Okay. Okay. So we'll start. We had several meetings on April 17th, the 24th, May 1st, and May 8th. We've got an extensive list of meeting attendees. And as we go through, I think the Vice Mayor is going to start with animal care and control, and we're going to kind of pass it back and forth between the three of us until we get through. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Yes, the animal care and control piece is on page 24 of the packet. And we met with Susan Malcolm, who's the Lexington Humane Society president, and she is in the audience as well as Kristen Palmgren. And who else do you have with you? Chief Bowling, yes. We want to thank you very much. As you can see on page 24, we have a recommendation for animal care and control, and this is that we direct the Division of Emergency Management to present a disaster preparedness plan relating to animals to the full council by September 30th. And this is something that I believe they've been working on, and we all saw from some of the disasters in other cities, particularly Hurricane Katrina, that the animal emergency situation was one which needed a plan ahead of time. and some of the background on the animal care and control is that Susan let us know that the partnership that the Lexington Humane Society and the LFUCG have has become somewhat of a national model in some of the programs that they have going on out there. In terms of budget, there's a one-time cost this year, and it is in the budget, of $11,687 new dollars to upgrade their radios to the 900 megahertz system. And the folks out there are also launching an online lost and found pet service so that if you have a lost pet, you, the member of the public, can go on the Internet to this new site once it's up and running. and you can search their files to see if your pet has been returned, or I guess returned isn't the right word, if your pet's been found. And so this will be a great service to our community. And you can see, those of you who've been on the council a while, remember that in fiscal year nine, we provided funding for ten officers, animal care and control officers because they were so short and you can see the fiscal year totals of dispatch times they've gone down to four minutes and that's a pretty good rate based on national statistics and others so we're actually very excited that they've been able to make good use of those ten officers and cut their dispatch time to calls. So that's kind of in brief, Council Member Myers, and so I'll turn it back to you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Booting inspection, Director Dewey Crow came in and provided some great information. Some of the background is that last year our link referred the Code of Ordinance Section 8.4 to the law department to look at updating the ordinance around the cost of mining quarry permit fees. And this year, I thought there was going to be somebody from the law. Is there somebody from the law in here right now? Oh, there you are. I'm sorry. I was looking down below. Okay, excellent. In our meetings, one of the issues is that the ordinance hasn't been updated since 1989. and the cost for the contractor to perform the mandatory inspections is actually costing the taxpayer rather than the owner of the mine because we haven't updated that ordinance. And so this year we wanted to come back with an amendment to the ordinance that would take care of that so that the owner of the mine would be paying the full price. There are a couple of different ways of doing that. And so rather than the committee settling on one way or the other, we thought we'd have the law department come in and kind of share with us the two options. I'm told that one of the options the council didn't want to do originally. And so the goal of this is to get this thing in a place where we don't have to have somebody that comes back and reviews this ordinance and changes it every single year. That's bad law if you've got to change the law every year to keep up. So we're looking for a way to amend this thing so that it will automatically keep up with the cost of doing the inspections. Yes, sir. Well, there's actually going to be three options, and one of them is directly contrary to what you just said. That's why we don't want to talk about that one. One of them is to simply go with the recommendation that building inspection originally made, which they feel comfortable. And part of the issue that I just found out about today is I don't know how engaged engineering has been in this process to date, and they're going to get stuck with doing this going forward along with the other changes. But if you simply go with the 18 to 24, I'm told that that will get you probably, will make you good for the next two or three years without any kind of issue at all. So just keep that in the back of your mind as we talk about these other options. So one option would be just to go with the original proposal. Apparently these haven't been raised in quite some time, but by raising them to the $18 and $24 that are in your current packet, they think that that would be fine for the next two or three years, and you could revisit it after engineering's had their chance to see how this works, if that's not going to work going forward. Another option, and this is the option that Mr. Myers indicated, was not something that was desired when the ordinance was originally adopted. In many instances like this, what you have going on, at least on the renewal fee, I'm told, is we go out and hire the expertise. We don't have it. And in other instances that you all are aware of like that, we will simply have the permittee at their cost go and get that certified for us and provide it to us for review. There was a reluctance to do this apparently under this ordinance because I guess there's perhaps more of an ability, because of who these operations might have on their payroll to actually have someone like their employee perform an inspection. So I think that was the reason that you all originally did not go with that type of option going forward. And under that option, you'd have, at least on the renewal, they would pay a de minimis fee that would go to building inspection, like let's say it would be $50, and then they would spend the hundreds or thousands of dollars that it would take to get the operation inspected on their own. They would provide building inspection paperwork. It would be certified by an appropriate expert. And you would have to take that as being accurate. And I think the concern was, once again, that I suppose if you don't make it from somebody from outside, you could technically probably have somebody that's employed by them performing the inspection. I think that was one of the concerns. Another option would be you could try to come up with a formula. You'd still go with the 1824, I think, until probably January of 2014. And then going forward, you would come up with a formula that got recalculated each year based upon the cost that they were incurring for these inspections divided by the acreage. and i'm a little more confused after today after meeting with building inspection because my understanding is there's a type of fee we have in here it's the uh it's actually the 24 per acre that's recommended originally for land that's yet to be affected apparently we haven't really had that be the case at least in recent memory and that would be handled operationally is my understanding, this is one of the issues where you might want to get engineering involved going forward. My understanding is the thought process there was those would not be farmed out. That would all be done internally. So you don't necessarily have the same issue for both of these fees. I'm told that the only time that the outside inspector is employed is for an existing operation on a renewal. So it's not exactly a clean comparison between the two types of fees that you have proposed in the ordinance. Okay, thank you. Connie, I'm kind of putting you on the spot for the last second here. You had some excellent forethought on this during our link meeting. If you could come and talk a little bit about. She tells me that this one probably works. You know, I remember when this was actually put in place in the first place, and there was a concern among council members about making sure that you got a good report, that you could depend on to be accurate about the number of acres that they were working with in the mining pouring. And the idea that we had come up, that I had mentioned in the meeting, was that we would base our cost to them for the next year on the last year's cost, divided by however many acres that we were dealing with. And I think that was what he addressed in the second option, where he said you could implement $18 and something, 1824 was it, until 2014, and then impose the used last year's cost to determine the next year's payment by the individuals. So you would only ever be one year off in terms of collecting what you should collect to make yourself be whole in this issue and not fall behind in what you were doing. And the reason that we have it done the way it's done right now was Council did have a concern that we got a good report. And I would assume that that could also take place even if the companies were paying for this, as long as we required them to have an outside vendor do the inspection. Is that true, Mr. Barber? I can't speak to exactly what the concerns were originally, but if you required them to use something that was not in their employee, hopefully that would eliminate at least some of that concern about them hiring the person to do the work. But that is what you all do in many other inspections. I mean, I guess taxi cabs might be an example. We don't perform the inspections ourselves. They have the inspections performed and provide the paperwork to us to show that it was inspected. And as long as you can be assured that you are not having to take the payment for something that you weren't intending, whether you have them pay for it or we adjust the rate so that it's moving with the cost every year, either way I think should work. And if everybody's okay with letting them outsource and bring it to you, that changes the amount of work that internally you have to do to make sure it gets done. I guess if I could raise another concern that I would have, and that's that a couple years ago we had an audit done in engineering, and there were some projects. One of the things they found in the audits was that we require contractors to do certain things, and they're supposed to turn in certain documents that are stamped with the engineer's stamps. And we found that those things weren't always followed. And even two years after the audit was done and corrections were supposed to be made, another audit was done last year and we found many of the same problems still exist. And so I like having it done the way that we currently do it for that second reason. Besides this, that if I were the owner of the company, I could have one of my employees do it or someone that had some type of a business relationship with me. I think there's only three mines. Is there just two companies and three mines? I think there's three mines, but one of them is not actually active. Well, it's not active right now. So it's not a large group that we're dealing with every year. I like option two, right? That's the option that you presented. The 1824 for the current rate, and then in 2014, start basing it on last year's cost. He was saying 1824 should cover what it's costing us until that time, and that gives them time to know what the changes are going to be that take place for them. It's actually $24 for one type of permit and 18 for the other, and that's multiplied by the number of acres. Right. From my point of view as a council member, I like option two. I like the option that we just discussed. And so we don't have to make a decision today, but we certainly wanted to give Law an opportunity to speak to this. Maybe at a future meeting when we get ready to make a motion, we can have engineering come in and talk about what it means for them as well. So thank you very much. The next thing in building inspection, we have a recommendation to adopt a resolution initiating text amendments to authorize moving enforcement of the signed ordinance from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Planning. If you recall last year when we moved a lot of the duties and employees that were in building inspection over to planning, One of the things that we did to give planning a chance to catch up and get acclimated to the new people and the new duties was hold off the enforcement of the sign ordinance until a future date. And so after conversations with Director Crow this year, the committee felt like it's time to go ahead and move the enforcement on over to planning where the people are and the resources are. And then you'll see on your, as a notation on this, This is Appendix A, page 18. We actually, as a committee, went ahead and asked the law department to go ahead and draft our motions, as well as our amendments to resolutions or ordinances or create the new ones that we would need. And so those are in your packet for your review. This isn't the appropriate time to make those motions, though, so we will wait. But they are there, and so you can see our intent and how we want to deal with that. also to direct the Division of Planning to provide a presentation on zoning violations pertaining to the signed ordinance and break them out by type to the full council by September 30, 2012. You're going to see throughout this report out that when there were situations where the full council needed additional information, we went ahead and put into our readout that we're going to direct that division to go ahead and be preparing that presentation. We gave them, as you can see, September 30th plenty of time out in order to get that done and then bring it back into the full council or appropriate committee. And next is code enforcement, and I'll hand it over to you, Ms. Henson. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Code enforcement you will find in your packet on page 28. If you remember, Council passed a resolution that authorized up to $200,000 for a physical year to be funded for collection or abatement of nuisances, weeds, mowing, and so forth. The link recommended this year that we adopt it to say with a minimum of $200,000 because what we found was that we were not getting that full $200,000, and we will be bringing forth a motion regarding that, and it is on page 20, I believe. Well, maybe of your packet. We also recommended the Department of Finance to include in their monthly budget reports details regarding code enforcement liens, direct code enforcement to coordinate a program modeled after Louisville's Operation Brightside to abate illegal signs in the right-of-way and to launch a government-wide sign abatement encouraging employees to remove the signs from the right-of-way. And then we would like a presentation to the full council on any plans by September 30, 2012. And then we would also like to refer to general government the issue of contracting out abatement of tall grass and weeds and the number of days a property is allowed to abate a nuisance. And for instance, I think the current date to allow an abatement is 14 days, and we would just like to study that in committee. By the time, I guess by the time it gets to the 14 days we have hay. If it has to be 12 inches and the property owner is sighted and they're given 14 days depending upon the weather and it becomes a real safety and quality of life issues for many neighbors. Is there anything else? I actually had a couple of pictures to kind of illustrate that. And this is my son. I turned around backwards so you can recognize me. But this is at the corner of Manowar and Crosby. And there's a series of pictures I wanted to show you. One of the concerns that we had when we talked about that 14 days after you site the property owner to correct the problem, the issue is that before we site them, or before we site them, I guess, the grass is already a foot tall. So it's already way out of control. And if you live next to that property and you see the rodents and the snakes and things that are attracted to that, it creates all kinds of problems. So then you say the grass is already a foot tall, and then we give him two more weeks on top of that. If it rains once or twice in there, then you've got grass that's really tall. So he's two and a half years old. There's one picture in particular you can see the grass is all the way up. It's almost to the back of his neck. And so that, again, is at the corner of Manowar and Crosby, which also creates a sight issue when you're trying to turn right onto Manowar because you've got two-foot-tall grass that you're trying to look past. So those are just to illustrate. If you had, I guess, the camera, the printout's not showing as well as it is if you look at my iPhone, but that's just to illustrate the issue of when we wait for the grass to be a foot tall before we sight and then give them another two weeks, it really creates problems. then as we move to emergency management some of the background for emergency management we have several outdoor warning sirens that are of the 1960s vintage and it's getting really difficult to find replacement parts really difficult to find people that can work on those And so the director wanted us to look at several different things, a plan for modernizing the system, a plan for replacing current sirens. And when you looked at doing that, there's a couple different kinds of sirens you can have. Some sirens are talking sirens, and they actually give you verbal instructions on what to do or what's going on. And other sirens just have a siren, an alarm. And so we wanted to look at studying which one of those types of sirens would be the best siren for our community. And they requested $40,000 each year for the next three years to upgrade seven of the oldest sirens, but there's no funding proposed in the FY13 budget. Also, the division is heavily funded by grants, and there are some grants that already are going away. There's some that are sort of forecast to go away in the future. And so the recommendations for this division would be to refer the issue of long-term emergency preparedness to the Planning and Public Works Committee. And then also under that we're going to look at assignment placement program and then the impact of reduced grant funding on this division and our public safety. Enhanced 911. Some of the background are the fees for wireless phones are state-mandated and have not been changed since 1998. I think we heard about that earlier. Other fees, including landlines, are locally based. One of the problems with that is that landlines are going away. The percentage of people who have a landline now is decreasing rapidly, and so we're not being able to collect the revenue that we need to maintain and modernize our system. Current conversation system is heavily dependent on number of landlines, which are decreasing. Regional 9-11 network saves LFECG a minimum of $250,000 annually, in addition to $150,000 in annual reimbursements. Currently, all calls are routed through police headquarters dispatch, both emergency and non-emergency, and 63% of those calls are to E911 or non-emergency. So as a recommendation, we directed Enhanced 911 to present to the Council a strategic plan regarding funding for E911 no later than October 31st of 2012. And I'll pass it back over to Council Member Henson for questions. Thank you, sir. Now we move to community corrections, which will be found on pages 32 and 33. Things that are going on at the detention center, just to give you some background information, is they are in the process of reopening the kitchen for the staff. and this should be revenue neutral. It will not be free meals for the staff, but hopefully a reduced cost. The staff has to go out for lunch or bring their lunch, and they didn't have a lot of options, and this is one thing they've stated in the past they would like to see happen. And the weekenders that are booked into the detention center on weekends create a log jam for the detention center. They're mandated to check in on Friday nights and they're released on Monday mornings. And then there are several lieutenants and captains that have training certificates that have expired. and we suggested or they're thinking of working with the police to staff to provide the training in the interim. They would like to increase the number of federal prisoners to increase revenues and requires working with the U.S. Marshals. Our recommendations based upon Director Rodney Ballard was to hire an assistant director at the detention center. That cost would be a total of approximately $110,000, including salary and benefits and pension. We also recommended the CAP program, which is the electronic monitoring that they present no later than August 31st to the full council presentation, and continue to work with the local judges to educate and encourage them to utilize the electronic monitoring when appropriate. And I think this would take the stress off of the many inmates at the detention center that are just doing weekends or possibly work release. That is the end of that report. And then we'll hand it over to Vice Mayor Gordon to do police. Thank you, Mr. Myers. And before I do police, I meant to say on animal care and control, they see 11,000 animals each year out at our animal care and control facility. I thought that was an important number. Police, we have some short background, and then I'll add a few things that we learned during our meeting with the chief and his staff. I want to thank all of the folks from police. who helped us with this. An administrative late item will be included to reflect the ratification of the new collective bargaining agreement. And one of the things that we had a fair amount of conversation about was the overtime expenditures during the NCAA, particularly Final Four weekend. Again, they are quite significant, and if I recall, I didn't really write it down, I think over $100,000, somewhere in that range, was incurred by our police for overtime for the final four weekend. And then another, I think, rather innovative program that's going on out there is the volunteers in policing. The police are using qualified volunteers. These are civilians who are helping them follow up with victims of property crimes so that the victims of property crimes are all receiving a phone call by someone, most of them from these volunteers who are working hard to give their volunteer time out there. As you know, public safety is over half of our budget, and the police budget is $61,038,180, as proposed. Over 90% of that is personnel, and police have cut significantly, as most of you know, on operating over the last couple of years. and the current recruit class will finish probably sometime in October, and it will put 24 more officers on the street. They currently have eight deployed military who are police. They typically have 25 to 30 members who are on military leave, sick leave, et cetera. And one of the things we learned that's kind of a benchmark for them is that when their patrol, Chief, I trust you're going to correct me if I got these numbers wrong, but what I had written down is when patrol gets down to 219 people, they start pulling folks from other places to go on patrol because patrol is high priority. And then they have, let's see, So they currently have, in 2008, January 2008, there were 589 sworn officers, and as of April 10, 2012, there are 505 sworn officers, so that's down 84. And one of the other interesting things, and just finally I will say that our Division of Police, who are accredited with the CALEA organization, have received status of, it's called flagship status. and for the third consecutive assessment in 2010, becoming the first and only municipal police agency in the United States to be so honored. And I think that that speaks to the high, you know, the accreditation and the high standards that they have for maintaining that. So with that, I will end police. And thank you, Vice Mayor. And now we'll turn it back over to Councilman Henson to do fire and EMS. Thank you, sir. Background a little bit on the fire. Over the last several years, the Division of Fire has seen an increase in run volume and expenditures in relationship to hazardous materials, response mitigation, and cleanup. And I think one specific that we remember very well was the mercury spill in the home here in Lexington. But also the tower used for training our firefighters has been condemned and needs to be replaced. And they are exploring a public-private company to design and build a new tower. the demolition cost for the tower would be $32,000. So we would recommend FIRE's efforts to explore opportunities to recoup the mitigation costs from the responsible parties for hazmat spills and would direct FIRE to provide a progress report to the full council by November 30, 2012. Also, we talked about, it's not in your packet, but we did talk about, and they are working on a strategic plan to maintain their vehicles, apparatuses, facilities, and their staff. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henson. and for the background for the public safety, the division of public safety as a whole and the commissioner's office, contract is underway to address the federal mandate to connect public safety with the 800 megahertz radios. And then also UK basketball. Success comes at a cost to public safety divisions, and we're currently absorbing additional overtime costs, as the vice mayor stated. Our recommendations, and the reason we didn't just put the recommendation that Council Member Henson just talked about under fire was because we really wanted to do it globally so that we're referring to the creation of a policy for systematically replacing and maintaining vehicles, apparatuses, and other recurring costs that are crucial to public safety divisions to a standing committee. And so you'll hear more about that in the future. And then also, a second recommendation is to authorize and direct the Commissioner of Public Safety to conduct an evaluation regarding the functions of all police and fire positions and determine if the totality of a position's duties can be performed by a non-sworn employee. If you look at Appendix F on page 34, you'll see that motion. And then the third one was to create a log to show year by year how much each division is spending on the final four for future use in negotiating reimbursement for some of the city's costs for the University of Kentucky. And that concludes our report. If you want to look at the appendix now, we won't put it up on the screen, but all of our motions and ordinances and resolutions are all attached. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Myers and your LINC members. We appreciate your report. And Council Member Lane is up for the first question. Thank you. I had just a follow-up question with Council Member Hedden regarding the increasing the number of federal prisons to increase revenue. And did you see a report on that? What is our cost per day to maintain a prisoner there and what we would get reimbursed and if that impacted our salaries or anything? Would there be information on that? I think Mr. Ballard is here. Welcome, Mr. Ballard. Glad to be here. Yes, sir, we've looked at that. Like any institution, be it a hotel or corrections, we operate best at full capacity. So to have a housing unit half full doesn't truly reflect the cost as if it was totally empty. So the reimbursement rate currently for the federal rate is about $70 a day. So as an example, we met with them last week. 40 new prisoners would bring in an additional million dollars in revenue. So what's your current capacity? Is it mainly during the week when you're not full, or is it just on the weekends you're full? Currently right now our ADP, which is our average daily population, is running around 1,125. I have a capacity of 1,264. Okay. All right, I think that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Stemmett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, can you tell me when the two police classes and two fire classes are scheduled to start in the next fiscal year? Have we set any tentative dates? I know the specific dates have not been set. The police are working through an application process doing backgrounds and polygraphs right now, which I think shooting for August, start date in August. so with that then they'll have to do another process later in the year to get another class on board fire has their class in it's in its second week right now maybe third week and we're meeting with hr to look at when to start the process to create another list for them so will the new fire recruits in the next several months will that ease the brownout situation in next fiscal year or will we continue to brownouts into July, August, September? Well, they will continue into July, August. They won't be out until, I think, September. Don't you have another fire class coming on right during that time or right after? Well, that's what we're hoping to do is to have a class come on in November. And that way they would be out in time for next spring. And the other two sometime next February, January for the police? Something along those lines. I'm just curious how you budgeted the money. Do we budget a whole year for two classes, or do we do one for six months and another for six months? Do we know how we came up with our numbers? It looks like there's a big budget, and I'm not sure we're really going to need it based on the conversation we're having and when they start and stop. I don't have those exact figures in terms of how much they budgeted. Can you get it just based on two classes of each and when we're going to start and stop and how we budget came up with that number? And then have we looked at considering using overtime to ease the brownouts next year? We have had some meetings and discussed that and trying to put together some calculations. Because I think that the council, that would be a priority to discontinue that practice. practice. I know no one wanted to do it in this year's budget, and obviously we haven't recovered as much as we'd want to, but I think we would definitely be open to looking at a number. So if you can come up with something that's palatable in the next year's budget, we'll be glad to consider that. We've made some adjustments and some other things to alleviate some of the apparatus being taken out of service in terms of adjusting the scheduling of training to keep more trucks on the streets. And then what will police do in next year's budget? Will they need additional overtime as well? Because to me, their needs are starting to get a little more critical because aren't they pulling people from other staffing positions now at this point to keep that patrol number up to 219? Yes, they have. They are in the process of finalizing their decisions on what positions to pull back into patrol. So would overtime help them? I believe it would. So can you give us a number so we don't have to keep cutting valuable programs like our SEU units and traffic and things like that? Council keeps getting tremendous demand for those programs as well as the rest of the patrol operations. I think we'd also be interested in looking at keeping those levels on traffic, et cetera, where they're at. So if we can figure out what a cost to that would be, assign a number to it, then we can consider it here before we finalize the budget. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. So, Council Member Stenet, your first question, I just wanted to be sure I understood. You're wanting to know if two full classes are fully budgeted in fiscal year 13 budget. For each fire and police. So, in other words, to see if they all start and they all finish within the budget. That's correct. Okay, good. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess by looking at the overall, is there any recommendations for increased costs or decreasing costs to what the mayor proposed? Or it looks like the one I noticed was the $200,000 that would probably be an increased cost for code enforcement. But outside of that, are there any others? Vice Mayor, can I take that? Pardon me? Can I take that? Yes, please. Okay. Yeah, I think that you're correct. I think the last couple of years they've actually been budgeting $75,000 in that line item. The ordinance that we passed a few years ago, I think it stated that we put up to $200,000 in, but that's not been done. So that would be a change from the mayor's proposed budget. However, I would say that every year except for 2010, code enforcement has collected more than $200,000 in revenue after they abate those issues. And the problem is, though, that that money goes back into the general fund instead of back into their coffers to continue to do abatement. So while it will be an adjustment on the mayor's proposed budget, and they're already far ahead of collecting, they're on pace to collect far more than $200,000 this fiscal year. So while it's a change in the mayor's proposed budget, the money will still be there because their money is being collected and it just goes to the general fund. What we're saying is the intent of the Council back when we voted 15-0 to put up to the $200,000 in was to really put the $200,000 in. So this new ordinance will require that that be put in day one of the new fiscal year. Thank you. And if I could just add, there were several places, for example, the fire training tower, where I think that through our discussions we might have made a recommendation except that the Division of Fire, for example, is working on a partnership that might fund that. And someone was going to get back to us, I think, as to whether the cost of demolition was going to be included in that partnership. And, for example, the sirens for Division of Emergency Management, we know that there needs to be something done there, but we decided that the most important thing was to look at the long-term replacement plan before we made a money recommendation because we talked about those. So there are some needs, but we felt like they were maybe not for this fiscal year, but once we get more information, they're in the future, if that helps. And I think that that's one of the things that we found across public safety, but then really across government, is that our government doesn't have strategic plans to do a whole lot of things, like vehicle replacement, apparatus replacement, and things. And so rather than reacting in this budget, we thought it more prudent to put together strategic plans and then look at policies around those plans so that we eventually put in place something that, although it could be changed by a future council, the government really moves in the direction that we're going to systematically upgrade the things that we need to upgrade to stay current and to keep people safe and all those things. Did you have any other questions? Okay. Are there any other questions? I want to thank Council Member Blues and Council Member Myers and your link teams. And, Council Members, if you'll just look at the back page, our next link report out will be May 29th. That's Tuesday at 3 o'clock here in the chambers. And I want to thank all the public safety folks in the different divisions who helped us with these things and all the environmental quality folks. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Second. Yes, there is a motion to adjourn, and we are meeting in here. We're not going to go up to the fifth floor for the quarterly cow. So did I hear a second? I second. Okay. How do you get to say something in here? Well, if the council would like to entertain, This is really a report out for our LINCS meetings. About public safety or environmental quality. Council members, what's your pleasure? Our time is up, but we could give you three minutes if you want to talk. Council members, would you like to give this gentleman three minutes and we hear what he has to say? I make a motion that we provide three minutes for the speaker. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Anyone opposed? If you will please come to the podium and give us your name and address, and you will have three minutes. Those are our rules. My name is David Back. I've been a farmer for like 50 years here in Fayette County. And my main concern here is for the bike riders in the country. And I see you're looking at each other. Okay, I wouldn't take the three minutes. I'm sorry. But this address needs to be addressed and try to provide safety for the bike riders and educate them that there are still people farming in the country and we don't want any accidents to happen. And one reason, way I think we could help this on this particular road that I live on is 14 feet wide, and sometimes we have one bike rider, sometimes we have hundreds. And if we could find a way to widen that road and make the bike riders more aware of what's going on out there. It's a ticking time bomb, and I don't want someone to get killed. Thank you very much for letting us know that. I'm sure that Mr. Lane, he has something to say. Mr. Beck, coincidentally, I'm the 12th District Councilmember. I have the rural area. And my aide, Scott Seymour, is in the back of the room. If you'll give him your name, address, we will follow up with you. And thank you for coming in and speaking. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Myers, did you have a comment? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Sir? Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck. Council Member Myers. Could you please tell us? Mr. Back. He's right here. Could you please tell us what road that was? Which road? Yes, sir. It's R-E-D-D Road. Red Road. Okay. And I mean, I'd be glad to sit around and talk to anybody so we could get this safety issue taken care of. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council members? We have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Anyone opposed? We are adjourned and we'll meet right here in about one minute. Thank you.